Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

petaluma · March 2, 2015

So a question for the group. Which do you trust more when you are not involved in the science/research Corporations or Academia? I have worked in both in IT Management and have seen a lot of questionable things occur in both environments. Trust me folks IT is privy to a lot of secrets.....

And further does the general public trust Corporations or Academia more when it comes to science/research? I guess you would have to ask does the media trust/more fairly report on Corporate or Academic science/research?

I think it ultimately comes down to the money. Money/Funding in my mind play at least as large a role in academic science\research as it does in corporations. Although anymore both are so closely intertwined that maybe its impossible to determine the answer....

sandyk · March 2, 2015

I think it ultimately comes down to the money. Money/Funding in my mind play at least as large a role in academic science\research as it does in corporations......

Especially when the funding comes from Tobacco companies ?

petaluma · March 2, 2015

Especially when the funding comes from Tobacco companies ?

That's the most obvious but I think that plays pretty low on todays radar. In the US the surgeon general put a warning label on cigarettes in 1966. and the overt attempts by the industry to claim "positive" health benefits pretty much died in this country. The ad campaigns shifted to the "coolness" factor. How was it handled in Australia?

I'm thinking more of current events....

Edit: In 1973, the Assistant Director of Research at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company wrote an internal memorandum regarding new brands of cigarettes for the youth market. He observed that, "psychologically, at eighteen, one is immortal" and theorized that "the desire to be daring is part of the motivation to start smoking." He stated, "in this sense the warning label on the package may be a plus." ^[35]

sandyk · March 2, 2015

That's the most obvious but I think that plays pretty low on todays radar. In the US the surgeon general put a warning label on cigarettes in 1966. and the overt attempts by the industry to claim "positive" health benefits pretty much died in this country. The ad campaigns shifted to the "coolness" factor. How was it handled in Australia?

I'm thinking more of current events....

Edit: In 1973, the Assistant Director of Research at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company wrote an internal memorandum regarding new brands of cigarettes for the youth market. He observed that, "psychologically, at eighteen, one is immortal" and theorized that "the desire to be daring is part of the motivation to start smoking." He stated, "in this sense the warning label on the package may be a plus." ^[35]

The Australian Government legislated for plain packaging with health warnings and graphic images.

The fight with the big tobacco companies continues in both the media and the courts , with a paid "apologist" for the Tobacco Companies even having a letter published in a recent Sydney Sunday newspaper.

Their latest whinge is about illegal imports without the mandated packaging, which they claim are hurting sales and resulting in reduced taxation revenue.

sdolezalek · March 2, 2015

Many of the debates we have about science are like our time's version of the flat earth society. Then too, it was not the scientists who convinced us the world was round. Instead it was Columbus searching for the riches of India. Long before Columbus sailed, astronomers and scientists had effectively proven the world was round, but people tended to ignore them or not believe them. Columbus, was actually way, way off in his calculations of the circumference of the Earth. But once his discoveries and those of other sailors opened up the globe to commerce, there was money to be made and the truth won out.

Unfortunately, many of the untruths we fight today exist because there is a lot of money in keeping us ignorant.

petaluma · March 2, 2015

Unfortunately, many of the untruths we fight today exist because there is a lot of money in keeping us ignorant.

Agreed. So the question is an average individual who is working long hours in a job, trying to raise a family, trying to stay fit and healthy, and have some semblance of an external social life with friends, how does he or she reliably stay informed about science based issues that affect he/she and their families lives??? I think the individual is pretty much screwed and living by the seat of their pants......???

petaluma · March 2, 2015

The Australian Government legislated for plain packaging with health warnings and graphic images.
The fight with the big tobacco companies continues in both the media and the courts , with a paid "apologist" for the Tobacco Companies even having a letter published in a recent Sydney Sunday newspaper.

Their latest whinge is about illegal imports without the mandated packaging, which they claim are hurting sales and resulting in reduced taxation revenue.

It sounds like we are actually a bit further ahead in that war then you folks, that's surprising to me. What's the % of smokers in the general populace in Australia? I believe in the US the aggregate % is somewhere around 28% or so. It varies significantly by state.

gmgraves · March 2, 2015

This is a good example of what I was commenting a few posts back.

A report says "we are eating too much red meat" (or whatever). That gets reported as "red meat is bad for you". Later another report says "a moderate amount of red meat can help prevent (a particular) illness" which is reported as "red meat cures illness".

Especially when many people only read headlines and summary paragraphs it's not surprising they get confused!

Exactly!

Snowmonkey · March 2, 2015

It sounds like we are actually a bit further ahead in that war then you folks, that's surprising to me. What's the % of smokers in the general populace in Australia? I believe in the US the aggregate % is somewhere around 28% or so. It varies significantly by state.

~17%.

sandyk · March 2, 2015

It sounds like we are actually a bit further ahead in that war then you folks, that's surprising to me. What's the % of smokers in the general populace in Australia? I believe in the US the aggregate % is somewhere around 28% or so. It varies significantly by state.

You are ahead of us ? If your figures are correct you are way behind us.

Do you have cigarettes out of view in stores, plain packaging with health warnings and photos of diseased lungs etc on the packets ?

Do you have cigarette advertising on TV etc. ? We don't permit it..

These aren't the latest figures either.

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Factsheet-Smoking.pdf

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cigarette+packaging+australia&biw=1280&bih=566&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=PiX0VIiLJsXcmAX7goHwCg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1.5

Audiophile Neuroscience · March 2, 2015

Reasonable people doubt science because it is a reasonable doubt to have. The question as to why this is a reasonable doubt is I believe multifactorial and already many things have been mentioned. Basically the signal to noise ratio is too low and with problems of not knowing who to believe. Even if one looks to authority even the experts disagree, so how is the public supposed to make sense of it. Appeals to authority have been replaced with "evidence based" research in my line of work. The problem here however is the evidence keeps on shifting, the next generation of research contradicting the previous one. Now the experts argue over interpretation of the data rather than interpretation of the scientific mechanisms behind the data. People become confused and gravitate to things they want to hear. Over and beyond all of this, science itself is evolving. Even once fundamental laws with deterministic predictable rules are being challenged by unpredictable "roll of the dice" views of the universe.

Ajax · March 2, 2015

It sounds like we are actually a bit further ahead in that war then you folks, that's surprising to me. What's the % of smokers in the general populace in Australia? I believe in the US the aggregate % is somewhere around 28% or so. It varies significantly by state.

Hi Petaluma,

I travel a lot in Europe and I can attest that Australia is a long way in front of the Italians and French who appear to be quite apathetic to the dangers of smoking. You will often have to contend with smoking in public places including restaurants.

With regards to the US my thought is that we have similar attitudes. Smoking is pretty much banned everywhere in Australia as is advertising, however, it is more prevalent in poorer and less educated groups. It is very unusual to go to a party and come across anyone smoking except for a few desperate people.

Jud · March 2, 2015

bit worrying that there is a vaccine compensation scheme.

It's what has allowed us to still have lifesaving vaccines in the face of denialism, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

Jud · March 2, 2015

Well, it might behoove people to also learn that science is not the job of the government.

That's true, it's only the job of governments that wish to base decisions on science.

Jud · March 2, 2015

I thought the National Geographic article was quite good, and was most perceptive in its discussion of the answer to the question that's the subject of this thread. It follows with something I've been thinking about for a long, long while. Let me ask your indulgence for the following summary of a pet hypothesis of mine:

- At least in the USA, and perhaps worldwide, it seems to me that there are particular metaphors that shape thinking.

- Through a good part of the 20th century, I feel the dominant metaphor was the automobile. In politics, media, etc., the thought was that while we might argue about a topic - politics, science, etc. - much like we might argue about what sort of car we liked or how to fix a problem with it, at the end the important thing was that we all had to be in the car and the car had to run. In other words, we had to reach consensus, make a decision, and that decision was the way of things until everyone reached consensus on a change. After elections, one would always hear things like how under our political system we were divided during the campaign and would now, post-election, unite again as one people. Congress actually reached consensus on things like budgets for years at a time, rather than lurching along with weekly funding crises. And the consensus-builders were actually re-elected.

- Now the dominant metaphor appears to be the sports team. You have your "team" and I have mine, politically, in terms of science, etc. Since there is no such thing as a major sporting event with mutual victors, that means if your team wins, mine loses. There are no sage pronouncements after elections about how we will now move forward as a united nation, but rather what this election means to the never-ending battle between the teams. It isn't important that the car should run with all of us in it, but rather which team is seen as being at fault that it doesn't. There is no felt need and little desire for consensus and unified action.

The Nat Geo article put this into the context of today's discussions of science. People determine what to believe not based on an evaluation of the science (and to be fair, they didn't back in the day, either, though there was a great deal of social pressure to agree with the general scientific consensus, because that's what we did as a society, reach consensus), but based on which team they belong to. Conservative? Then you've got a set of scientific positions ready-made for you to hold. Liberal? Same thing. And woe to the science that doesn't have a ready-made constituency among either of these teams, such as vaccination. Here's a medical advance that rid the world of nightmares such as the early-20th-century worldwide flu epidemic that killed 50 million people, but since both liberals and conservatives distrust "big government," any large public health measure (fluoridation as well) has built-in constituencies in entrenched opposition.

sbgk · March 2, 2015

It's what has allowed us to still have lifesaving vaccines in the face of denialism, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

and many things foisted on the population by the medical establishment/companies are later shown to be harmful, so it's wise to have a questioning mind. Antidepressants with side effects of suicidal thoughts, no problem there then.

Jud · March 2, 2015

and many things foisted on the population by the medical establishment/companies are later shown to be harmful, so it's wise to have a questioning mind. Antidepressants with side effects of suicidal thoughts, no problem there then.

I'm searching my comment in vain for a reference to anti-depressants....

Snowmonkey · March 2, 2015

And woe to the science that doesn't have a ready-made constituency among either of these teams, such as vaccination. Here's a medical advance that rid the world of nightmares such as the early-20th-century worldwide flu epidemic that killed 50 million people, but since both liberals and conservatives distrust "big government," any large public health measure (fluoridation as well) has built-in constituencies in entrenched opposition.

I agree with everything you said, Jud, except your statement about flu epidemics. Due to the influenza virus's ability to change its antigenic profile rapidly, it's altogether possible for another worldwide epidemic to occur before an effective vaccine can be developed. We've already had close calls in recent years with Bird Flu and Swine Flu. On the other hand, many other scourges, such as Smallpox, Diphtheria, Poliomyelitis and Tetanus, which have collectively killed far more than 50 million people, have been effectively controlled or eradicated by vaccination.

Gary.D.Olson · March 2, 2015

I thought the National Geographic article was quite good, and was most perceptive in its discussion of the answer to the question that's the subject of this thread. It follows with something I've been thinking about for a long, long while. Let me ask your indulgence for the following summary of a pet hypothesis of mine:

- At least in the USA, and perhaps worldwide, it seems to me that there are particular metaphors that shape thinking.

- Through a good part of the 20th century, I feel the dominant metaphor was the automobile. In politics, media, etc., the thought was that while we might argue about a topic - politics, science, etc. - much like we might argue about what sort of car we liked or how to fix a problem with it, at the end the important thing was that we all had to be in the car and the car had to run. In other words, we had to reach consensus, make a decision, and that decision was the way of things until everyone reached consensus on a change. After elections, one would always hear things like how under our political system we were divided during the campaign and would now, post-election, unite again as one people. Congress actually reached consensus on things like budgets for years at a time, rather than lurching along with weekly funding crises. And the consensus-builders were actually re-elected.

- Now the dominant metaphor appears to be the sports team. You have your "team" and I have mine, politically, in terms of science, etc. Since there is no such thing as a major sporting event with mutual victors, that means if your team wins, mine loses. There are no sage pronouncements after elections about how we will now move forward as a united nation, but rather what this election means to the never-ending battle between the teams. It isn't important that the car should run with all of us in it, but rather which team is seen as being at fault that it doesn't. There is no felt need and little desire for consensus and unified action.

The Nat Geo article put this into the context of today's discussions of science. People determine what to believe not based on an evaluation of the science (and to be fair, they didn't back in the day, either, though there was a great deal of social pressure to agree with the general scientific consensus, because that's what we did as a society, reach consensus), but based on which team they belong to. Conservative? Then you've got a set of scientific positions ready-made for you to hold. Liberal? Same thing. And woe to the science that doesn't have a ready-made constituency among either of these teams, such as vaccination. Here's a medical advance that rid the world of nightmares such as the early-20th-century worldwide flu epidemic that killed 50 million people, but since both liberals and conservatives distrust "big government," any large public health measure (fluoridation as well) has built-in constituencies in entrenched opposition.

Very interesting thoughts, Jud.

Jud · March 2, 2015

I agree with everything you said, Jud, except your statement about flu epidemics. Due to the influenza virus's ability to change its antigenic profile rapidly, it's altogether possible for another worldwide epidemic to occur before an effective vaccine can be developed. We've already had close calls in recent years with Bird Flu and Swine Flu. On the other hand, many other scourges, such as Smallpox, Diphtheria, Poliomyelitis and Tetanus, which have collectively killed far more than 50 million people, have been effectively controlled or eradicated by vaccination.

I certainly have to agree that the flu virus's ability to, as you say, change its antigenic profile, limits the current effectiveness of flu vaccines. This limitation is due not solely to the virus's ability to change, but also to the time scale on which the by now fairly dated flu vaccine manufacturing process takes place. There are efforts underway that would greatly reduce the time frame currently necessary to make millions of doses of vaccine and thus eliminate the current requirement that scientists must try to predict, with limited success, next year's dominant strain. The vaccine could be manufactured upon identification of the threat rather than trying to engage in threat forecasting.

That having been said, I think the vaccine has been much better than nothing. (Greater compliance would improve results further. Compliance percentages for flu vaccine in the USA are miserable.) To paraphrase what Winston Churchill said about democracy, it's the worst response to the flu ever invented by man, except for all the others.

petaluma · March 2, 2015

You are ahead of us ? If your figures are correct you are way behind us.
Do you have cigarettes out of view in stores, plain packaging with health warnings and photos of diseased lungs etc on the packets ?

Do you have cigarette advertising on TV etc. ? We don't permit it..

These aren't the latest figures either.

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Factsheet-Smoking.pdf

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cigarette+packaging+australia&biw=1280&bih=566&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=PiX0VIiLJsXcmAX7goHwCg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1.5

Yes, I thought we might be behind. No advertising on TV, just the surgeon general's warnings on packs, and you have to ask a clerk for them....My wife and I were in Gibraltar a couple of years ago and saw extreme warnings on on the cartons on display. Things like these will kill you etc...not just a soft message that they are not good for you etc...I think we should adopt the same standards.

James1776 · March 2, 2015

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Because so much 'science' has become simply political rhetoric...or religion

Audio_ELF · March 2, 2015

Because so much 'science' has become simply political rhetoric...or religion

That sounds like a circular argument response to the original question...

Paul R · March 2, 2015

That's true, it's only the job of governments that wish to base decisions on science.

So, you are advocating a government based upon a scientific theocracy?

AudioDoctor · March 2, 2015

So, you are advocating a government based upon a scientific theocracy?

SO say we all...?

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in